Appeasement Bought Us Nothing But Trouble

When former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was on Larry King’s show, she blamed the Bush Administration for North Korea’s launching of seven missiles:

“Frankly, Larry, I think the problem here is that we are watching the failure of five years’ worth of American diplomacy,” Albright said Wednesday night. “I’m very worried about it, and I hope very much that we do have a review of our North Korean policy.”

Investors Business Daily caught Ms. Albright’s rewrite of history and outlined how it was the Clinton Administration that dropped the ball on North Korea, bringing us to the problem we have today:

• 1993: North Korea threatens to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. After conducting U.N. inspections there for a year and a half, former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix warns he can’t provide “any meaningful assurances” North Korea isn’t making nuclear weapons.

• 1994: Under the “Agreed Framework” negotiated by the Clinton administration with help of ex-President Carter, North Korea agrees to stop building nuclear weapons. In exchange, it gets billions in aid, including food, oil and modern nuclear reactors.

By 2000, according to a congressional report, North Korea would become the “largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid” in Asia. North Korea immediately starts cheating on the deal, acquiring nuclear know-how and material from Pakistan and China.

• 1998: A U.S. government report finds at least 1 million North Koreans have died of starvation as aid is used to kick-start the nuclear weapons program.

• 1998: Clinton’s military chief of staff tells Congress North Korea has no active ballistic missile program. A week later, North Korea shoots a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and toward Alaska.

• 2000: Despite continued breaches of the “agreed framework,” Albright travels to Pyongyang, where she cheerfully clinks glasses with Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il. Media hail the meeting as a diplomatic masterstroke by Clinton.

• 2002: New York Times headline: “North Korea Says It Has A Program On Nuclear Arms.”

For years, the Clinton Administration appeased Kim Jong-Il, refusing to take any action that could risk Clinton’s approval rating or injure his legacy. All the while, North Korea was building its weaponry. Now that Kim Jong-Il is test-firing missiles he acquired during the Clinton Administration, Secretary Albright criticizes with self-righteous indignation President Bush’s failed diplomacy.

Other former Clinton Administration officials have criticized Bush’s handling of North Korea. Recently Ashton Carter, Clinton’s assistant secretary of defense and William Perry, Clinton’s secretary of defense, said this in their June 22 Washington Post editorial:

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive — the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea’s nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

Suddenly, when they aren’t the ones responsible for the consequences, these men are hawks on North Korea. It’s easy to demand an airstrike against a madman possibly armed with nuclear weapons when they’re on the sidelines and not subject to any of the risk.

But when they were the ones minding the store and had the chance to make the tough choices and deal with Kim Jong-Il’s defiance and missile buildup, they balked.

74 Comments

2006 – After 6 years of US foreign policy failures, North Korea fires missles, threatening Hawaii.

2006 – Republicans, in disgrace and with approval ratings ebbing, blame Democrats for Bush’s six years of failed diplomacy.

He had six years to fix things and he botched it.

yetanotherjohnJuly 7, 2006

Lee,

Clinton had 8 years to fix it, including before NK had a nuke. Now that they have a nuke you expect a miracle. Your BDS is showing.

jpm100July 7, 2006

6 years of Multinational Diplomacy failed?

Wasn’t that how we were suppose to have proceeded with Iraq? OMG. Bush was right in how he proceeded into Iraq.

MichaelJuly 7, 2006

Actual;ly Lee the Repbulicans are not in disgrace and Bush’s approval numbers are on the rise…but then you would never let a few facts upset your fantasy world.

LeeJuly 7, 2006

Regardless of the mess GWB was left with – he had six years to fix it, and failed. Hawaii is under threat of attack.

Wake up children – the fault is yours – you elected this clown.

LeeJuly 7, 2006

And here is a list of accomplishments that the Republicans have achieved since 2000 to rectify the North Korea situation:

stan25July 7, 2006

Clintoon got his legacy alright. He is beginning to look like the most incompetent President we have ever had. Even worse than the Peanut Farmer. There are still things out there lurking, that Clintoon did that will come home to roost. He did all of this to cover the fact that he was getting a blowjob in the Oval Office.

MikeSCJuly 7, 2006

Bush did what the Dems asked in regards to N. Korea. He agreed to the multiparty talks, which they kept crying about.

Clinton left a disaster in foreign policy in almost every area AND an economy that was crashing. He left us a stock market shaken by unmatched corruption. He left us with Al Qaeda primed to attack te US. He left us with an intel apparatus that couldn’t find its butt with 2 hands. -=Mike

JustrandJuly 7, 2006

The Clintonistas are engaged, on damn near EVERY talk show, with the most dramatic re-write of history in, well, history.

Madeline halfBright and the rest papered over and outright appeased Kimmy for 8 years. The NORKS announced just how dramatic their cheating was right after Jimmy Carter picked up his “Peace Price” for helping negotiate all this!!!

The Clinton butt-boys and girls are busy spinning, but the truth is very clear: they screwed this pooch!!

And, as some have already stated, these same folks who STILL shout that we needed “diplomatic partners” in Iraq, shout just as loud that we should “go it alone” in North Korea.

“When former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was on Larry King’s show, she blamed the Bush Administration for North Korea’s launching of seven missiles”

Of course she blamed the Bush Administration! The very PURPOSE of her former role as the Secretary of State was to supervise and conduct foreign policy! Would you expect to hear her say “It was all MY fault!”? The left seems to be always passing the blame to the right when the negative results of their legislation become a major topic.

And here’s a timeline for those who believe that the blame, in fact, DOES lay with the Bush Admin.:

2002 Oct North Korea admits having a secret nuclear arms program.

Dec 11 The US finds North Korean-made Scud missiles on a ship bound for Yemen, but is later forced to allow the ship to go, saying neither country has broken any law.

Dec 26 UN confirms that 1,000 fuel rods have been moved to a nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.

Dec 27 North Korea expels two IAEA nuclear inspectors and says it is plans to reopen a reprocessing plant, which could start producing weapons grade plutonium within months.

2003 Jan 2 South Korea asks China to use its influence with North Korea to try to reduce tension over the nuclear issue, and two days later Russia offers to help.

Jan 6 The IAEA passes a resolution demanding that North Korea readmit UN inspectors and abandons its nuclear program or face possible action by the UN Security Council.

Jan 10 North Korea announces it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Feb 12 The IAEA finds North Korea in breach of nuclear safeguards and refers the matter to the UN Security Council.

Feb 24 North Korea fires a missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan.

March 10 North Korea fires a second missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan in as many weeks.

April 23 Talks begin in Beijing between the US and North Korea, hosted by China.

April 28 US Secretary of State Colin Powell says North Korea made an offer to US officials, during the talks in Beijing, to scrap its nuclear program in exchange for major concessions from the United States.

Aug 1 North Korea agrees to six-way talks on its nuclear program with South Korea, the US, Japan, China and Russia.

Oct 30 North Korea agrees to resume talks on the nuclear crisis, after saying it is prepared to consider the US offer of a security guarantee in return for ending its nuclear program.

Dec 9 North Korea offers to “freeze” its nuclear program in return for a list of concessions from the US. It says that unless Washington agrees, it will not take part in further talks. President George W Bush says the program must be totally dismantled.

2004 Feb 25 Second round of six-nation talks end without breakthrough.

June 23 Third round of six nation talks held in Beijing, with the US making a new offer to allow North Korea fuel aid if it freezes then dismantles its nuclear programs.

July 2 US Secretary of State Colin Powell meets the North Korean Foreign Minister, in the highest-level talks between the two countries since the crisis erupted.

Aug 16 North Korea says it will not attend a working meeting ahead of the next round of six-party talks on its controversial nuclear program, saying the US was “not interested in making the dialogue fruitful”.

2005 Feb 10 North Korea says it is suspending its participation in the talks over its nuclear program blaming the Bush administration’s intention to “antagonize, isolate and stifle it at any cost”.

May 1 North Korea fires a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan, on the eve of a meeting of members of the international Non-Proliferation Treaty.

May 11 North Korea says it has completed extraction of spent fuel rods from Yongbyon, as part of plans to “increase its nuclear arsenal”.

July 9 North Korea says it will rejoin nuclear talks, as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice begins a tour of the region.

July 12 South Korea offers the North huge amounts of electricity as an incentive to end its nuclear weapons program.

July 25 Fourth round of six-nation talks begins.

Aug 7 Those talks deadlock and a recess is called.

2006 July 4 North Korea test-fires at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2.

July 5 North Korea test-fires a seventh missile.

— Compared to the Bush Admin., Clinton did next to NOTHING to thwart the threat that we may now face in the form of North Korean ICBM’s. Liberals (as the name implies) believe that they can solve problems simply by being NICE to people. “Excuse me, Mr. Dictator who starves his people to death, if you do so and so for us, we’ll send you a whole bunch of FOOD for your people.” – Makes sense to me…how about you? Clinton sent $4BIL, with a B, in aid to N. Korea which, as is now clear, went almost DIRECTLY to their military (missiles and the like being in that category, obviously).

I would say that the best course of action would be to turn North Korea into a giant parking lot.

snowballsJuly 7, 2006

Has anyone considered that neither Administration is/was capable of dealing with this madman?

Didn’t Albright go out with a comment somewhere along the lines of “they fooled us”? Isn’t Bush doing exactly what he said he would do when he entered office? Does either approach work?

Lee, this just doesn’t work…

Wake up children – the fault is yours – you elected this clown.

…because maybe it’s the Dems’ fault because they failed at both “un-electing” Bush and producing a marketable candidate in the first place.

PublicusJuly 7, 2006

Well, whatever happened prior to his administration, Bush has been in power for 6 years. He has to take responsibility for his actions and the results of them. I don’t care what Clinton, or for that matter, what Eisenhower did in Korea…that’s got nothing to do with Bush’s actions and results.

snowballsJuly 7, 2006

He has to take responsibility for his actions..

Yes, that’s true, but if there have been no actions as such, then what do we do? Set ourselves up for the three-peat?

Besides, it’s not like we are dealing with a post stone age dictatorship or something. There’s one guy carrying the football, and if any of his underlings were to suggest something that he doesn’t like – they’re gone*.

Does anyone know if any of the missiles’ flight paths went anywhere but the sea of Japan? There’s no direct path from North Korea into the Pacific ocean without going over South Korea, Japan or Russia.

*speculative of course

Totally MattJuly 7, 2006

Enron was Clinton’s fault, Mike? Who had Kenny Boy in their rolodex again? Whose campaign did all of these convicted execs contribute to? I’m not saying that this widespread corruption was Bush’s fault. I’m saying it’s partially his, perhaps partially Clinton’s (one can make a case for anything against Clinton, but hey, his job approval rating was light years above Bush’s), but for the most part it’s a predictable by-product of unfettered capitalism. I’m not saying we should vote for the Communist Party; I’m saying that corruption is the cost of doing business, and it ought to be taken seriously by everybody. I’m glad you do, but I wish the President would.

Anyway, I’m shocked–SHOCKED!–that Madeleine Albright is still a partisan Democrat. I expect nothing but reasoned analysis and bipartisan camaraderie from the members of this administration after they’ve been put to pasture.

John IrvingJuly 7, 2006

but hey, his job approval rating was light years above Bush’s

I liked Clinton, but there is a lot to criticize about his performance. His job approval ratings can be much firmer linked to his control of information and much superior spin skills than any superior qualities as a President.

thoughtJuly 7, 2006

This whole North Korean mess is clearly Clinton’s fault.

As for Bush having had 6 years to deal with this…well, by the time Bush took over, the situation was far worse, and NK’s nuke program farther along, than when Clinton had his chance. Plus, Bush has had to deal with far greater issues than Clinton ever did…like 9-11, the corporate scandals, all of which occurred during Clinton’s watch, etc.

Clinton was a stooge with regards to NK, just like with all national security issues. The only reason Clinton had such a high approval rating was because he and his friends in the media hid all of the festering problems from us. Clinton reminds me of Herbert Hoover, who at one time presided over the roaring 20’s…everyone thought they had it so good, but then it all eroded.

It is CLEARLY his fault. Nobody else in gov’t can remotely take the blame.

Who had Kenny Boy in their rolodex again?

Clinton. Notice that it was Clinton cabinet members calling Bush to beg him to save Enron.

Notice it was Bush who said no.

Whose campaign did all of these convicted execs contribute to?

He gave Bush money. Bush, in turn, did nothing to help him and Bush’s Justice Dept indicted him and convicted him.

Clinton, on the other hand, bent over backwards, championed the near-total removal of all oversight , and helped them gain untold billions in int’l contracts.

I’m saying it’s partially his, perhaps partially Clinton’s (one can make a case for anything against Clinton, but hey, his job approval rating was light years above Bush’s)

Approval ratings trump actions?

Wow, you ARE a progressive.

but for the most part it’s a predictable by-product of unfettered capitalism.

Yes, because Communist states didn’t have mass corruption. It’s a problem with capitalism. Sure.

And, funny that Bush, oh, indicted and convicted Lay, Skilling, and Fastow. Also went after Global Crossing. Tyco.

Who did Clinton go after for corporate corruption?

I’m not saying we should vote for the Communist Party; I’m saying that corruption is the cost of doing business, and it ought to be taken seriously by everybody. I’m glad you do, but I wish the President would.

Bush provided the oversight that Clinton refused to do so because, darn it, Clinton needed that stock bubble.

Clinton oversaw a problem every inch as bad as the S & L scandal. In a shocking turn of events, the press is far less concerned about it than they were about S & L’s.

Anyway, I’m shocked–SHOCKED!–that Madeleine Albright is still a partisan Democrat. I expect nothing but reasoned analysis and bipartisan camaraderie from the members of this administration after they’ve been put to pasture.

I’ll be stunned if you hear anywhere near the venom towards the next Dem in office.

Of course, since it won’t be happening anytime soon, they will probably be dead by that point.

You didn’t see Reagan, Bush, or Quayle regularly condemning Clinton. You HAVE seen Gore and Clinton condemn Bush. -=Mike

RobLACa.July 7, 2006

What’s the matter Lee, having a hard time keeping up the PERPETUAL FRAUD that is the Democrat Party?

Clinton is a huge failure , fraud and full of it as are the entire democrat party who continues to live their lie. Democrats have made themselves sysnonymous with corruption , liars and traitorous frauds. Keep up the good work FLee.

LeeJuly 7, 2006

JoshBrown – thanks for the detailed list of things GWB did that failed to solve the NK problem. Glad someone has documented just how many times Bush has had the opportunity, and failed, during the last six years.

RobLACa.July 7, 2006

MikeSC,

That was a beautiful smackdown, brilliant and as always indisputable facts are a slap in the face of the corrupt and phony democrat party.

gozorakJuly 7, 2006

there are many reasons why a self rightous cow like Albright will not be intrusted by the Amreican people again with protecting our interests. She proves with statements like this that partisanship is more important to her and her party than dealing with problems like North Korea. As laughable and infuriating as her comments are I am glad she and others continue to bury any hope they have of one day winning the white house

LeeJuly 7, 2006

Albright is pushing a book she wrote, so keep that in mind. Look at the absurdities that comes out of Ann Coulter’s ugly dog-faced mouth these days as she goes out on book tours.

Nonetheless, Bush has had ample opportunity to fix this mess over the last six years, and today we see Hawaii in possible peril as a results of his failed attempts at diplomacy.

SIX YEARS. Who voted for this clown?

RobLACa.July 7, 2006

Hey loser, Lee .

Shutup and go cry for your failed corrupt traitors somewhere else. Like prison for example where you are in the MAJORITY. Go play and pretend to be competant .

RobLACa.July 7, 2006

gozorak,

She keeps in shape and can leg press 400lbs, because she loves public service and can’t wait for a Dim to get back in office.All these losers are the same, they can’t get a job other than by being in Power. Democrats are stupid in they are only interested in filling in slots with any of their dumb “D’s”. That is all that matters.

JustrandJuly 7, 2006

Lee…thank you for espousing pre-emptive action against Korea. You’re on the right side for once!

Now I know why my sweet grandmother died of cancer; it was Clinton’s fault. ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS? The guy has been out of office for six years and you still talk about him as if he is still the President. Yes, Albright is a partisan, but so are all of you.

Of course no one in their right mind would blame Bush completely for what that wack job with the funny hair cut in North Korea is doing. But to blame Clinton for a missle launch six years after he left office is asinine.

As foreign policies go, reasonable people can disagree if it was smart for frat boy to focus all of his energy on Iraq and not on all the parties to that axis of evil he likes to talk about. But hey, if the Rossians and Chinese are busy protecting their own self interest, and being enablers for North Korea, there really is nothing frat boy could have done in this situation but try to go to that dreaded UN. Which, by the way, he did. Now if he had a real ambassador… well, that’s another discussion for another day.

Now even the most hawkish among is knows -at least I hope they do-that it would be foolish to declare war on North Korea right now. And Kim jung -what ever his name is, knows it. That’s why he keeps playing this game of chicken, and is having his way with the Bush administration. Is it frst boy’s fault? Of course it isn’t. It’s the fault of a leader who is unstable, and who unfortunately, the world community has ignored for far too long. One who unlike that other wack job that used to rule Iraq, might actually have weapons of mass destrcution, and wont be afraid to use them.

MikeSCJuly 7, 2006

Now I know why my sweet grandmother died of cancer; it was Clinton’s fault. ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS? The guy has been out of office for six years and you still talk about him as if he is still the President. Yes, Albright is a partisan, but so are all of you.

Hmm, the Great Depression didn’t end by 1938.

IT WAS ALL ROOSEVELT’S FAULT!!! HE HAD 6 YEARS TO FIX IT!!

True, he actually was given about 12 yrs and failed — but still…

…or maybe, just maybe, a problem can be made so horrible that fixing it is a long, long, long-term process? -=Mike

snowballsJuly 7, 2006

field-negro, good shot.

Sure, everybody is a partisan, but the Clinton Administration tried it their way, and Bush has taken option 3 (do nothing) which has been his way from the outset. Neither has been at all remotely sucessful.

If North Korea keeps it up, option 2 may be in order. Would the U.N. agree to such a resolution, even with an omnipotent U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and with support of the worldwide community? Your guess is as good as anyone’s.

snowballsJuly 7, 2006

Sorry ^, but what I meant to add is that it’s unfair to blame Bush and/or Clinton for this thing.

But I think it’s clear where North Korean missiles will be pointing towards going forward.

It’s America’s problem now and has been for a long time. I’m just glad that Gore or Kerry is not in office now. Gore might get mad at NK and claim that their missiles aren’t environmentally friendly and produce another PowerPoint presentation (ppt rattling?) and Kerry would probably start handing out scantron sheets in order for us to pass the global test crap.

/rant

JustrandJuly 7, 2006

Scrappleface has the definitive answer up: “U.N. May Threaten Kim Jong-Il with Time Out“

says it all…and WAY too close to the truth of the matter!

The U.N. is worse than toothless.

IF Bush does ahead and “fix” the NORK situation the only way it CAN be fixed, then the Left will decry THAT…versus their current moaning.

p.s. The Battle of Britain, did not occur until AFTER Winston Churchill took over the British government. That’s right…Neville Chamberlain’s “diplomacy” secured “Peace in our time”. But when that neo-con Churchill took over, THEN Hitler was forced to attack Britain. Poor Adolph…he LIKED Neville. Rumor has it they danced….

Sam WassersteinJuly 7, 2006

Don’t worry “field-negro”. One day you will be freed from your Democrat plantation masters.

You will be allowed to speak freely then, and no longer forced to spew that hateful bile.

Totally MattJuly 7, 2006

Approval ratings trump actions?

Wow, you ARE a progressive

I was trying to put it in terms you would approve of, Mike! Because what the people say, goes, right? Or is that only when it comes to gay marriage?

Totally MattJuly 7, 2006

I’ll be stunned if you hear anywhere near the venom towards the next Dem in office.

You didn’t see Reagan, Bush, or Quayle regularly condemning Clinton. You HAVE seen Gore and Clinton condemn Bush. -=Mike

Because it makes no political sense for people to attack Clinton, because people would vote for him again if they could. You wouldn’t, but a majority of women, blacks, Hispanics, liberals (grudgingly, ’cause he’s a centrist) and partisan Dems would. Bush, on the other hand, is a terminally unpopular and embarrassingly uninquisitive dope who spends more time on vacation than Parisian transit workers. Gore and Clinton would be remiss if they didn’t take shots at this idiot! God, it must be so hard to be a Republican with this nitwit in power.

As for my throw-away comment about us being better off in a capitalist society, along with the corruption that comes with it, than in a Communist society, you twisted my words to mean that I think we would have less corruption in a Communist society. Not even Communists believe that! Jesus H. Cricket, dude! You’re not such an ideologue that you can’t accept that there is necessarily waste and corruption that comes with living in a capitalist society, are you? Holy crap…

snowballsJuly 7, 2006

obligatory 40 year old virgin reference…

Q. You know how I know you’re gay?

A. Because you keep bringing up gay marriage when people talk about Kim Jong-il.

snowballsJuly 7, 2006

terminally unpopular and embarrassingly uninquisitive dope

That’s pretty good, but being a Republican today under this guy is a whole lot easier because of today’s Progressive/Missing Identity/Left/Democrat/Liberal party’s members and constituents(sp?).

Lee, what would you do? I realize of course you only seem to be offering up the DNC felching talking points, but what would do in regards to North Korea? Give the President some much needed advice Lee…

MikeSCJuly 7, 2006

I was trying to put it in terms you would approve of, Mike! Because what the people say, goes, right? Or is that only when it comes to gay marriage?

Taken to trolling me now, eh TM?

People saying “Hey, the economy is good” isn’t exactly a roaring proclamation of the greatness of foreign policy.

But, hey, your point routed me, right?

Right?

Because it makes no political sense for people to attack Clinton, because people would vote for him again if they could.

Hold on to that belief. For a man so universally loved, he never could get a majority of the vote.

Even the “hated” Bush pulled that trick off. So, Clinton had better opinion polls. Bush had better VOTE NUMBERS. Both times he won, mind you.

When Clinton was in office, Reagan and Bush honored the long-time tradition of not criticizing the current President. Though it seems Dems have a problem honoring it — likely because they know they won’t be in the WH anytime soon.

You wouldn’t, but a majority of women, blacks, Hispanics, liberals (grudgingly, ’cause he’s a centrist) and partisan Dems would.

If he ran in 2004, he’d have been steamrolled.

If he ran in 2000, he would’ve lost.

If he ran in 2008, he’d have lost.

You seem to miss the whole “Clinton never once got a majority of the vote” thing.

Bush, on the other hand, is a terminally unpopular and embarrassingly uninquisitive dope who spends more time on vacation than Parisian transit workers.

And yet he got a majority of the vote and more votes than Clinton. Twice.

Man, that has to burn you up inside.

Gore and Clinton would be remiss if they didn’t take shots at this idiot! God, it must be so hard to be a Republican with this nitwit in power.

Says the man whose party is led by Howard Dean and whose last two candidates were embarrassments to all Americans.

As for my throw-away comment about us being better off in a capitalist society, along with the corruption that comes with it, than in a Communist society, you twisted my words to mean that I think we would have less corruption in a Communist society.

You said it was a problem of a capitalist society. It’s MY fault you can’t make a point?

And, seriously, what’s with the trolling me? You’re tiresome playing the role of uber-emotional elitist about gay marriage. You’re WAY out of your league here.

Jesus H. Cricket, dude! You’re not such an ideologue that you can’t accept that there is necessarily waste and corruption that comes with living in a capitalist society, are you? Holy crap…

Yup, that is EXACTLY what I said.

Kudos.

I once thought you had your head in the clouds. It’s now clear that it cannot be the case as your head is firmly entombed elsewhere. -=Mike

Totally MattJuly 7, 2006

Hey snowballs, gay-baiting is a good tactic for a party with a lot of homophobes in its base that cannot campaign on results. So get your practice in, ’cause Rover’s gonna need you in a couple of months.

Actually MikeSC and I and several others were having a very long and very interesting discussion about gay marriage in a previous thread, so it was an inside thing between me and my BFF. =)

There should be a rule that people who can’t spell “competant”, RobLACa, don’t get to question the competency of others. This thread makes you come off as a complete and utter moron. Go pick an argument with the receptionist at your local chapter of Greenpeace, because the people you disagree with here are most assuredly more intelligent than you are.*

As for Albright and other Clinton higher-ups not being able to find work, I’m pretty sure that whatever they all do, they all make more money than you ever will, selling crappy books or working in the private sector. You’re a jealous idiot, and they’re millionaires who get to go to cool parties and schmooze with hot movie stars. But seriously, though, you da man.

Also, you are in the minority. People don’t like this president anymore, they don’t like his policies, and they want a change. I’d be happy with any moderate Repub or Dem, a split Senate, and a Democratic House. Empirical evidence clearly states that spending is lower when Congress is divided than when either party controls both chambers, so economic conservatives will undoubtedly agree with me as nobody likes to be a hypocrite (and spending definitely needs to be curbed).

As for everyone talking about pre-emptively striking NK, L’il Kim has at his disposal enough chemical weapons to wipe out Seoul in a hurry, and he can deliver them with conventional artillery batteries. Dropping bombs on his silos is an incredibly idiotic idea because he seems like the sort of whackjob who would love to go out with a deadly gaseous bang. Pay off a few of his generals to overthrow him–it’ll be much cheaper, and North Koreans will like the U.S. more (and yes, that does matter). Plus all of those South Korean allies of yours that you supposedly care about won’t die of mustard gas poisoning.

And Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein while Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran. Justrand, does every liberal have to accept responsibility for Chamberlain’s isoloationism? Because principled liberals aren’t isolationists, they’re tough multi-lateralists. (No, there aren’t very many of them around anymore.) Isolationism is a conservative non-strategy. Conservatives in the US were unhappy that FDR decided to go to war and not because he was three years late, but because they didn’t think America’s interests would be served.

Don’t try to infer anything about the quality of anyone’s character on here, Justrand, based on a weak-kneed British Prime Minister from the 1930’s. We didn’t vote for him. And the American president that (in conjunction with Stalin) defeated Hitler was a liberal. Nice try, though.

*Not saying libs/Dems are smarter; if they were, Dubya would be an assistant GM for a MLB team. I’m saying this clown is just stupider than the people he is insulting.

MikeSCJuly 7, 2006

Hey snowballs, gay-baiting is a good tactic for a party with a lot of homophobes in its base that cannot campaign on results. So get your practice in, ’cause Rover’s gonna need you in a couple of months.

But your party opposes gay marriage. Every single candidate said so.

Or is your party just laden with liars?

As for everyone talking about pre-emptively striking NK, L’il Kim has at his disposal enough chemical weapons to wipe out Seoul in a hurry, and he can deliver them with conventional artillery batteries.

I want this recorded, because I have money saying that if we go to N. Korea and there are no WMD there, TM will say that Bush lied about it and nobody really believed they had them.

You know, how they did with Iraq and all.

And Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein while Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran. Justrand, does every liberal have to accept responsibility for Chamberlain’s isoloationism?

Seeing as how you expect conservatives to do so for us trying to prevent Iran from taking over the Middle East — yeah, you do have to accept responsibility if you hope to have some semblance of consistency.

Hmm, who opposes any military action against anybody who MIGHT be a threat to the US?

Not the conservatives.

Conservatives in the US were unhappy that FDR decided to go to war and not because he was three years late, but because they didn’t think America’s interests would be served.

Yet the Republicans REFUSED to campaign on WW II against FDR in 1944. Weird, huh? Not politicizing a war?

Man, that is some kooky stuff there.

And the American president that (in conjunction with Stalin) defeated Hitler was a liberal. Nice try, though.

The general who made it happen wasn’t a liberal in your eyes.

And that Stalin guy was a pretty loathesome human. Just beneath Mao for most detestable human in history.

*Not saying libs/Dems are smarter; if they were, Dubya would be an assistant GM for a MLB team. I’m saying this clown is just stupider than the people he is insulting.

TM, again, you do realize that the cutting can go both ways, right? -=Mike

Totally MattJuly 8, 2006

It should have set up six party talks with Saddam and invaded North Korea.

Is that about right, Lee and Totally?

No, invading neither country would have been a better idea. Iran would have made more political and military sense, because now Iran is effectively taking over Iraq and the military is handcuffed when it comes to killin’ Kim Jong Illin’. (Is there a world leader whose name is more fun to make fun of?)

Mike, who’s trolling you? Would you prefer to be able to blather away with no one questioning your assertions? This tendentious dialogue serves to sharped both sides’ arguments, and it’s more fun than just having a big ol’ partisan internet circle jerk, isn’t it? I’m reading comments at Wizbang and trying to have an argument with people I think are capable of it (yourself included). Or would you rather me return to the echo chamber and bark at stuff?

Even the “hated” Bush pulled that trick off. So, Clinton had better opinion polls. Bush had better VOTE NUMBERS. Both times he won, mind you.

So Clinton fans didn’t get out and vote as much as Bush’s supporters, probably because they were sitting back enjoying the prosperity. I may as well assume that, because the guy did have a consistently high job approval rating. And don’t tell me that Clinton managed to manipulate polls. You’re giving him too much credit. He’s not Karl Rove.

Bush ran against Al Gore when he was the most boring man on the planet, and against John Kerry who was a gift to the incumbent. Gore is funny and passionate now, but too smart to get back in the ring. Anyone can see what it’s done to McCain and his “maverick” principles.

I did say corruption is a problem in capitalist societies. It’s a problem in every society, except for maybe anarchist communes, I suppose. (Cheap rent, but soap’s hard to come by.)

And yet he got a majority of the vote and more votes than Clinton. Twice.

Man, that has to burn you up inside.

Disappointed, yes. But I’m a happy, well-adjusted, very well paid young man with a great girlfriend and a wonderful family. Kinda softens the blow.

The Democrats are opposed to gay marriage, but they’re opposed to the constitutional amendment banning it too. It’s a politically safe position. I’d prefer that they grew a collective spine, but it’s better than trying to write discrimination into the law.

We won’t be going into North Korea, because we can’t. Don’t have the means to do it. But KJI most certainly does have WMDs. Maybe Saddam lent him his for safekeeping. But they weren’t in Iraq. Hilarious of you to try and use this against me, as you and your ilk are the ones with egg on your faces.

I wasn’t saying you’re guilty by association of shaking Saddam’s hands via Rumsfeld’s. I was saying that a neo-conservative was an apologist for a war criminal, and then helped orchestrate his removal. Not all neo-conservatives have been Saddam apologists, though. Similarly, one weak-kneed isolationist British Prime Minister does not thereby make all liberals week-kneed isolationists.

They didn’t politicize WW II, because it was the right war. This war, whatever its merits and motivations, has not been executed competently or honestly. I would never vote Democrat again if they refused to make this a campaign issue, because a president-as-such deserves absolutely NO loyalty whatsoever. He has to earn it through his performance, and Bush hasn’t. It’s not a monarchy, Mike, although I can name a few if you’d like to go live in one.

Did I praise Stalin? No. I said he helped take out Hitler. The Soviets did as much as the Western Allies to defeat him, in fact. Doesn’t make him a good guy. But it doesn’t mean I can’t be grateful that one evil piece of shit routed another evil piece of shit.

As for me insulting you, I’m trying to show restraint. RobLACa, on the other hand, deserves to be laughed off the internets.

Look, if you don’t want me to engage with your arguments, then stop making arguments in public forums. (Anyone who’s curious: MikeSC lost a debate about gay marriage in a previous comment because he expressly denied that the Court should ever, under any circumstances, supercede the will of the people to protect minority rights. Kudos to none of you for defending this lunacy.) But Jay Tea, Lorie, et al expressly welcome dissent, and I will continue to give it until I get bored. What the hell is the point of reading blogs if you just absorb the thoughts of people who agree with you? I hardly read any comments on liberal blogs. Why should I?

TMJuly 8, 2006

Bleh–does anyone know if there is a trick to using formatting tags on this blog? ‘Cause they seem to hate me.

TM's executive assistantJuly 8, 2006

*sharpen both sides.

snowballsJuly 8, 2006

Q. Do you know how I know you’re gay?

A. Because you seem to care a lot about formatting…

does anyone know if there is a trick to using formatting tags on this blog?

Yeah, a pretty html table would just make your comment pop!

snowballsJuly 8, 2006

Totally Matt, I totally kid ^.

When you say I hardly read any comments on liberal blogs. Why should I?, I couldn’t agree more. The only liberal blog that I ever liked (Yglesias) turned into a meaningless forum for NBA playoffs/rules/draft etc.

ScrapironJuly 8, 2006

All of the missile’s were shot down by a laser beam from a 747. It’s simply the star wars that the dim-wits also made fun of at work. They can also explode the NK nukes in country with no trace that anyone did a thing. Listed as just another failure by the dim-wits best friend Kim the donkey lover. LMAO

No, invading neither country would have been a better idea. Iran would have made more political and military sense, because now Iran is effectively taking over Iraq and the military is handcuffed when it comes to killin’ Kim Jong Illin’. (Is there a world leader whose name is more fun to make fun of?)

And just where would we have based this invasion of Iran out of? Afghanistan is land-locked and lacks the road & rail infrastructure we’d need to bring heavy armored divisions through. not to mention how the folks of Afghanistan would have reacted to us bringing in that many troops…

Pakistan allowed us nothing but overflight rights when we went into Afghanistan, and that was right after 9/11. You really think they would have let us bring in the several armored divisions it would take to conquer Iran?

To the north there’s Russia and the ‘stans, neither likely to let us bring in forces on that scale. And fairly mountainous terrain trying to go that way. To the west, Iraq & the Persian Gulf.

To invade Iran without having taken Iraq first, we would have had to take a coastal city with a good port and airport by amphibious and airborne assault and then clear and hold a thirty mile radius around that city for the better part of a month while the heavy units were brought in and organized. Do you have any idea how many casualties we would take just holding on to that city, much less with taking the rest of the country?